Virtue and Morals and Ethics and Ayn Rand

[Trey of Diamonds]

Americans are notoriously deficient when it comes to knowing much of anything about philosophy. That's why Rand is respected as a philosopher in America while laughed at for being a poser in other countries.

So a philosophy has to be correct to be a philosophy? I hadn't heard that before. And are only respected philosophers real philosophers? I hadn't heard that either. I have plenty of issues with objectivism too but I think it deserves as much respect as any other philosophy.

 

[Alceste]

So a philosophy has to be correct to be a philosophy? I hadn't heard that before. And are only respected philosophers real philosophers? I hadn't heard that either. I have plenty of issues with objectivism too but I think it deserves as much respect as any other philosophy.

My fancy man gives a number of reasons Rand is not considered a philosopher in the field.

1) She didn't come up with any new ideas - her world view is a rehashing / rebranding of other philosophers' work.

2) Her criticism is very weak and relies on demonization of people with competing ideas as opposed to reasoned critique of the ideas themselves.

3) Objectivism shares more in common with religion than it does with philosophy, in that Rand and her followers believed themselves to be on the One True Path. Loyalty to the cause and proselytizing the message is more important than contemplation, critique or debate.

These are the same reasons Ken Wilber is not considered a philosopher, incidentally, so it's nothing to do with objecting to the ideas themselves.

 

[Willamena]

So a philosophy has to be correct to be a philosophy? I hadn't heard that before. And are only respected philosophers real philosophers? I hadn't heard that either. I have plenty of issues with objectivism too but I think it deserves as much respect as any other philosophy.

Just as with science, a philosophy would survive if it passes peer review. In recent centuries, though, with the rise of literacy, the field has been "opened" by the public to being accessible, and therefore judgable, by public opinion. If Rand's philosophy is thriving more on the latter than the former...

 

[Sunstone]

So a philosophy has to be correct to be a philosophy? I hadn't heard that before. And are only respected philosophers real philosophers? I hadn't heard that either.

Strawmen.

 

[Sunstone]

I have plenty of issues with objectivism too but I think it deserves as much respect as any other philosophy.

It that's so, then dog **** deserves respect as philosophy.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

It that's so, then dog **** deserves respect as philosophy.

Don't hold back there buddy, tell us how you really feel.

I suppose we'll just see how Rand's Objectivism stands the test of time. Lots of philosophers have had their ideas sneered at, no reason she should be any different.

 

[Alceste]

Don't hold back there buddy, tell us how you really feel.

I suppose we'll just see how Rand's Objectivism stands the test of time. Lots of philosophers have had their ideas sneered at, no reason she should be any different.

Again, Objectivism is not considered a philosophy and Rand is not considered a philosopher, for the reasons I listed.

While her literary work may live on in public consciousness and remain influential for a long time to come (God forbid), infamy alone does not a philosopher make. Homer's work has survived the test of time but nobody in their right mind would call him a "philosopher".

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Again, Objectivism is not considered a philosophy and Rand is not considered a philosopher, for the reasons I listed.

By you, and that's fine, you are free to believe as you wish. Others disagree with you as is their right. Personally, I don't see why its such a big deal. So what if a bunch of folks want to follow the teachings of Ayn Rand? Who are we to say they are right or wrong? I suppose next you'll be saying that Rastafarians aren't a real religion because they don't match up with what you consider to be a true religion. Or maybe the Mormons are just a cult and don't deserve the esteemed title of religion. Where's the Live and let Live spirit here people?

 

[Alceste]

By you, and that's fine, you are free to believe as you wish. Others disagree with you as is their right. Personally, I don't see why its such a big deal. So what if a bunch of folks want to follow the teachings of Ayn Rand? Who are we to say they are right or wrong? I suppose next you'll be saying that Rastafarians aren't a real religion because they don't match up with what you consider to be a true religion. Or maybe the Mormons are just a cult and don't deserve the esteemed title of religion. Where's the Live and let Live spirit here people?

It's not just "by me", it's by everybody but American libertarians. As I said, her work does not appear in any journal or encyclopaedia of philosophy outside the US. I don't have any editorial authority over who gets into those publications.

Why is it so important to right wing Americans that the world consider her shoddy work to be "philosophy" rather than fiction, religion, ideology or opinion?

BTW, it's a sure clue that Objectivism is not a philosophy that you use the terms in bold red to describe it.

 

[Willamena]

By you, and that's fine, you are free to believe as you wish. Others disagree with you as is their right. Personally, I don't see why its such a big deal. So what if a bunch of folks want to follow the teachings of Ayn Rand? Who are we to say they are right or wrong? I suppose next you'll be saying that Rastafarians aren't a real religion because they don't match up with what you consider to be a true religion. Or maybe the Mormons are just a cult and don't deserve the esteemed title of religion. Where's the Live and let Live spirit here people?

What makes a "philosophy" isn't that people follow it, though. What makes a philosophy is the soundness of the ideas it encapsulates.

 

[Alceste]

What makes a "philosophy" isn't that people follow it, though. What makes a philosophy is the soundness of the ideas it encapsulates.

Exactly, when a philosophy is compelling, we simply agree with it. We don't "follow" the person who came up with the idea. Rand's followers have the same deferential attitude towards her that Catholics have for their pope.

You don't hear about people "following the teachings" of Voltaire, or Aristotle, or Wittgenstein, or even Machiavelli.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I find emotionally reactive rejection of objectivism as telling as absolute acceptance of it. I've yet to encounter a philosophy or ideology that is completely wrong/bad or completely right/good. One of the most disappointing things about people, is that there are so many who have.

 

[Alceste]

I find emotionally reactive rejection of objectivism as telling as absolute acceptance of it. I've yet to encounter a philosophy or ideology that is completely wrong/bad or completely right/good. One of the most disappointing things about people, is that there are so many who have.

Have you read Atlas Shrugged? I object to it mainly on literary grounds. Picture Karl Rove, stoned off his face, writing a Harlequin Romance. Gah. Awful stuff, and four traumatic nights of my life that will never be recovered.

I don't object to Rand on philosophical grounds because she is not a philosopher.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Have you read Atlas Shrugged? I object to it mainly on literary grounds. Picture Karl Rove, stoned off his face, writing a Harlequin Romance. Gah. Awful stuff, and four traumatic nights of my life that will never be recovered.

I don't object to Rand on philosophical grounds because she is not a philosopher.

I've read Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead, We the People and most of the rest of her works. I have a different reaction to them. I have not said that you can not have your conclusions, why do you insist that I can not have mine.

 

[Alceste]

I've read Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead, We the People and most of the rest of her works. I have a different reaction to them. I have not said that you can not have your conclusions, why do you insist that I can not have mine.

You can have conclusions. Who said you couldn't? On the contrary, you have my respect for slogging through those endless stretches of excruciating monologue delivered by insufferable characters in implausible scenarios. Well done! I had to skip over all but the first of those - I found them simply unreadable due to their repetitiveness and lack of story-moving content. I read both Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead - they were loaned to me by a friend who was a Rand devotee - and I have nothing good to say about either of them, but there is no accounting for taste.

OTOH, the question we are addressing is whether or not Rand ought to be considered a philosopher, not whether her work as a fiction writer has any merit.

 

[Sunstone]

I think William F. Buckley pretty well summed Rand's contribution to the world of ideas when he described her as "a frightened little woman" who nevertheless had managed to point out some of the problems with being accorded undeserved position or prestige -- such as when one inherits wealth, rather than earns it.

 

[Willamena]

But it stresses me how she thinks they are objective and being that sure about them being right when she admits.. hopefully, that she is only human.

Different people split the world up in different ways, subjective/objective being one of the biggies. She has certainly split the world differently than I would. Her philosophy, what I've read of it, allows for the existence of unreal things.

 

[Alceste]

She had too much certainty for me.
Novel & interesting ideas though for those of us who were uncomfortable with the pervasive hive mentality.

And what new ideas did Rand come up with?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

OTOH, the question we are addressing is whether or not Rand ought to be considered a philosopher, not whether her work as a fiction writer has any merit.

Yes but you have used the excuse that her writings have no merit as the reasoning behind her not being a philosopher. It is obvious that you have a very deep seated emotional reaction to Rand and her work, this makes it hard for me to take your arguements seriously as they appear to be based on your emotional reactions to her work rather than any objective analysis. Appearances might be deceiving but they're still hard to ignore.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Different people split the world up in different ways, subjective/objective being one of the biggies. She has certainly split the world differently than I would. Her philosophy, what I've read of it, allows for the existence of unreal things.

What unreal things? I probably agree with you but I want to make sure we are thinking of the same things.

Rand was a Jewish refugee from the early Communist government of Russia and a lot of her ideas are in direct response to that. Her idea of an Ideal Human was interesting and had a certian merit but unfortunately isn't the natural state of humanity. I see no problem with her followers attempting to become Rand's version of the Heroic Man, the more of them the better. But to expect humanity to naturally become such is delusional.